blizzard1024

Keeping digging your hole deeper.

You are the one that is way out of line and should be removed from this forum IMO. You can't have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't see it your way. Its your way or the highway. No place for a science forum.

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome. I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker. have a good day.

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s. Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy. If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening. I would rather walk my dog, not eat him.

You cherry picked the data. 2013 was before the big 2016 El Nino. Plus the increase in OHC amounts of hundredths of a degree C. How is that a problem? You can't prove that it is related to CO2 increases. The sun was the most active sunspot wise in a 1000 years during the late 20th century. It is NOT a coincidence that the sunspot minimum seen a few hundred years ago coincided with the Little Ice Age. Just like the warm up from the Dark Age cold period to the Medieval Warm period, warming could continue for a few hundred years in response to the late 20th grand solar maximum. So the warming today could be mostly natural. CO2 likely has a part but it is mostly natural warming because CO2 is a weak GHG. The Sun drives our climate. And to believe that the LIA or MWP were local phenomena only shows a deep lack of understanding of fluid dynamics. It is no surprise that climate scientists like Michael Mann, Andrew Desser, Gavin Schmidt and even James Hansen don't have degrees in atmospheric science.

Are you serious? Come on. Millions of peoples are not dying due to climate change. That is a big stretch. Are you ok?

Plus you assume that we can measure ocean temperatures with precision needed for OHC. That started really with the Argo floats in 2003. the data gets coarser and less reliable the farther you go back, especially before the satellite era. You seem to have problems with radiosonde data ; well I would say ocean temperature data is rife with inconsistencies, measurement errors etc too. BUT if it supports increasing CO2 = warmer Earth, it is accepted. If it doesn't, then it can't be correct. What about clouds huh? The NASA cloud project shows an inverse relationship between global average temperature and cloud fraction between 1983-2009. This suggests clouds modulate the climate system or have a significant effect. Why is this ignored too? This whole CO2 is the Earth's temperature control knob is on shaky ground and that is why you become so belligerent. You can't have a reasonable debate because you are insecure about this whole theory. So you attack and become angry. Chill out. Life is good....

Christy and Spencer are heros in the climate debate. So is Dr Curry. Brilliant and courageous people who are standing up for real science.

This paper suggests a TCR of 1-2C for a doubling of CO2. That seems reasonable and is in line with the observations. Theoretically speaking a doubling of CO2 should produce a modest warming within this range with neutral feedbacks. Its the 3-6C projections that I think are out of the bounds of reality. The Oceans provide too much of a buffer.

So reanalysis datasets are bad then too because they rely on upper air soundings. So the only records that are valid are the one's that are heavily "homogenized". Of course this introduces a massive warming trend in the data. That is very convenient. Like I said, in climate science the conclusion is CO2 is causing warming and all the research is to support that conclusion. This is backwards.

This is exactly like the surface temperature data which is the gold standard to many.

UAH doesn't retain data from NOAA-14 which has a warming bias. Also UAH agrees best with radiosondes and reanalysis vs the other datasets.

read this paper on climate models... https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/#more-26311

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming. If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual.

your anger in your posts shows that you are insecure about your position related to the whole CO2 CAGW viewpoint. I am totally secure in my position. Basic physics. Not computer models and analyses based on computer models that have a high degree of uncertainty.

This is counter intuitive to me. We had two major volcanic eruptions one in 1982 (El Chicon) and Pinatubo in 1991 early in these records and we have had three intense El NInos 1983, 1998 and 2015. How can removing all this lead to a strong warmer trend? Volcanos cool the atmosphere and strong El Ninos warm the atmosphere. I will read in more detail. Thanks.

What you are forgetting here skier is that it doesn't cause an automatic response in the Earth's temperature OHC there is a lag too.... to be truthful we need more data from the Argo floats to make any conclusions. This easily could be a cyclical trends in OHC.

Okay....follow my logic. Argo floats deployed in 2003. Very reliable much higher resolution dataset. Data for deep oceans before this is suspect. So using this new dataset which is the most comprehensive we see ONI or a tendency for more El Ninos, and, indeed OHC from the Argo floats has increased. Before 2003, one can say the data is of lower quality. Before the satellite era of the 1970s the data was even poorer in quality. Hence starting in 1970 (satellite era) or starting in 2003 (Argo data) makes sense and is not cherry picking. The tendency for more El Ninos leading to a warmer planet makes sense meteorologically and climatologically. Maybe CO2 causes more El Ninos? I know that has been stated (of course). But whatever the cause the increase in El Ninos likely is a major player in the warmth of the planet recently.

I told you I started when the argo floats were deployed in 2003 so you can assume much better OHC data. it wasn't a random date. if the data showed negative I still would have posted it.

I don't know much about biology I will give you that. How many times does a drug end up causing unknown side affects or other problems? anyway, I have been using atmospheric models for more than 30 years and I know the inherent problems with them. The atmosphere is a high non-linear system very hard to model.

But we are talking about OHC since the 1970s. We don't have a good handle on OHC really before the Argo floats but I will let that go. Let's try 2003-present after the Argo floats are active and you will see a tendency toward more El Nino ish conditions which is known to warm the planet.

Okay. First the top 5 you have are pretty basic science and not as complex as the climate system. Number 6 hurricane tracks several days out...now you are pushing it. There is tremendous uncertainty several days out and the hurricane center uses probabilities to determine risk. If the probability is greater than 10% of death and destruction, i.e the consequence is very high people evacuate. Rapid intensification, interaction with mid-latitude waves and extratropical transition are not well modelled. Number 7 you are pushing even way more. There are many instances where severe weather outbreaks don't materialize. we don't have a full understanding of CAPE vs shear and the balances needs plus dry air and other variables. There have been many busts here. Number 8 climate models are extremely uncertain.

The ONI actually has a positive trend since the 1970s... data source https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Yes you are correct. But more El Ninos lead to more tropical convection. This leads to more water vapor at high altitudes increasing the Earth's temperature and indeed an imbalance.

Yes the argo floats begin in 2003, the satellite data for ice begins during the late 70s a known cool period of the 20th century. Of course there easily can be a cyclical imbalance. Again I am not being disrespectful. I just don't agree. That's all. All of you are obviously passionate and smart people.